Sharon Chisholm wrote:
Hi
Hi Sharon,
4. In section 2.4.2.1, first paragraph it says "Implementations are
encouraged to use short-circuit evaluation in these cases." This seems
an arbitrary and somewhat obvious bit of implementation advice.
This text is trying to say that implementations may (even
MAY) use short-circuit evaluation.
I agree that this section might not be the obvious place for
this kind of advice, but I think it is Ok.
Unless you want to have a separate section stating
implementation considerations?
I don't think we need an implementation section. The text just struck me
as an odd thing to include.
So basically you are not objecting to the text?
12. In section 2.10.3, it says that "Implementations SHOULD NOT deliver
a message to the same mailbox more than once", but it doesn't indicate
under which circumstances it would be OK to do this.
This sentence is trying to say that implementations SHOULD
support duplicate elimination when a message is delivered to
the same mailbox, e.g.
fileinto "ABC";
fileinto "ABC";
should just behave as:
fileinto "ABC";
I can't think of any other case when duplicate elimination
would be Ok.
Sorry, what are the cases when duplicate elimination shouldn't be done?
I don't think there are any, but the WG didn't want to mandate any
duplicate elimination.
Or are you agreeing there aren't any and perhaps we should change this
to a MUST?
**
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
